Pure Statistical Regression (I'm looking at you, Al Borges)

I've accepted the near fact that Borges will be back next year, but after the 2013 sports year (Detroit & UM fan) this research was strangely cathartic. It's like I need to quantify just how terrible the decisions being made actually are.

I am also of the mindset that changing the entire regime would be a bad move at this point. (Which was also my position following the 2010 Gator Bowl ... arguing at the time a coaching change wouldn't guarantee anything, and if made a regression over the next few seasons was likely. I wrote the italicized text below before Hoke was hired):

So in 3 years at Michigan, the new coach has "regressed". Of course no UM fan thinks this is possible ... But it's 100% possible, and even probable. In the scenario above, UM has won 0 Big Ten titles, 0 BCS games, and is 1-2 against OSU?"

Here are the statistics against retaining Borges. I'm sure I'll get the usual "oh, you're cherry-picking statistics for your own agenda" responses, but ... um ... there's a plethora of ripe cherries to pick here, and it's a slow Monday.

You shouldn't point out the regression in games late in the season or road games without allowing for factors like quality of opponent or the expected change for home v. road performance in general.

This was the season we bit the bullet and took greater strides toward the offense we want to run in the future. Denard had graduated and many of the players recruited for the new style were working their way into the lineup. Devin isn't ideal. The upper classes were depleted as well.

It should come as no surpirse 2013 was a struggle, particularly on offense.

Denard ain't walking back through that door. And in college, you're never guaranteed to have an experienced line (injuries, wash-out, etc.). OC's job isn't limited to succeeding with 5 RS Srs on the OL and a once in a lifetime offensive weapon.

The NFL is already abound with coaching changes. If Hoke were to make a change when would it occur? Should it happen this week or wait until after NSD or some other date? What are the chances we get a change? I personally don't think any changes are coming, but if one did it would be Borges and/or Funk, but I'm concerned with how long we will have to wait to know for sure.

I would hope itd happen asap. A big name OC might sway some recruits. I dont think anyone committed to UM bc of Al Borges. Imo, if no changes are made within a week or two, then I think we are stuck with Al for another year. Please let there be a change.

it was back in October through the back channel. Harbaugh almost went to Michigan but changed his mind when NFL came calling. SF was the team that would've pulled him away from it bc he lives in that area.

I'm not real comfortable naming sources on this, but there are quite a few people who can back this up.

I don't think there was much else we could have done to get Harbaugh. Like Miles in 2007, he wanted to finish the season with his current team, and this time around, we respected that. I'm not sure that playing hardball and forcing him to decide a month earlier would have worked. Unfortunately, the NFL also wanted him and when the 49er job came open, we were out of luck - his wife reportedly wanted to stay in California, and he'd always had ambitions to be in the pros eventually.

It's just really hard to land an established coach. Very few schools pull it off. Pretty much the only time it happens is when the coach is out of the college ranks and wants to get back in - as was true for Saban, Meyer and Spurrier.

This is the chicken or the egg theory. Does the defense struggle because the offense turned the ball over, didn't sustain drives, and put them in bad places? OR did the defense struggle getting off the field, getting take aways, etc to help the offense like they did in 2012.

Probably a case of both sides of the ball being down from 2012 season.

It seems like the D struggled no matter what the O was doing. Even in games where we put up tons of points, the D struggled mightily. Copper Bowl being the most recent example where KSU was able to do whatever they wanted starting on the very first drive of the game where they systematically marched down and scored. Then followed that up with another long scoring drive.....then another......then another.

Our D deserves equal blame but at least Mattison proved the first year that if he has the right guys, he can put a dominant D out there. Borges hasn't had the same performance so everyone is clamoring for him to be fired.

1 more season will give us an answer and hopefully we can continue the recruiting so by year 5 A.RR, whether it is Hoke and Co or someone else, we'll have the guys we need in place to dominate again - or at least be competitive.

The biggest thing that bugged me about the defense is in 2011 we saw an agressive, attacking defense to this year where they sat back and teams could dink and dunk their way down field. It has been extremely aggrevating, espically the bowl game, to watch teams move their way down field.

While I don't think you're doing it, there is an all too common trend within this blog that you have to take sides, especially when attacking the other side of the argument.

Either it's all on the coaches or it's on everything but the coaches. It's either all on Borges or not at all on Borges.. It's either all the OL or not at all the OL. It's either because of inexperience or something else. It's either execution or playcalling. It's either offense or defense. Etc, etc.

Well, the a major excuse/reason for the defensive struggles are the same as the offensive struggles, and it all starts up front on the LOS. People will surely make the argument that all teams rotate in young guys, but that misses the point. Michigan, on both sides, was forced to play multiple young players completely in the rotation (not in situational rotations) this year, and as far as technique and fundamentals it showed.

On offense, it's been addressed many times. Young interior makes it so you can't run the ball very well inside. Also struggles in pass protection. You only have a few other options and when those get snuffed out you run out of options to out-scheme the opponent and rely more heavily on execution, which isn't a great thing to lean on with youth.

On defense it hasn't been discussed as much, but up front there is significant youth as well.

WDE rotation: Mario O should have redshirted last year due to his extreme lack of size, and is still undersized as a true SO that should be a RS FR except for lack of depth. Taco is a true FR. So you're option to avoid youth is to not rotate at a position that typically rotates often.

3/5-tech: Heitzman is a limited ceiling but decent RS So. Godin is a RS Fr. Wormley is a RS FR. Glasgow is a RS FR Walk-on. So you're option for experience here is Black, who is undersized inside, nominally a 5-tech, but is forced to play even some NT because of lack of depth and experience at that position. FWIW, 5-tech and NT are probably the two positions requiring the most technique, meaning the most experience, and this is where Michigan didn't have it.

3-tech/NT: Henry is a RS FR. Pipkins is a SO (and got hurt). So your options are Black (undersized), Washington (presumably hurt), and Ash (who hasn't developed for whatever reason). Basically, you have no rotation, again, at positions that typically have rotation.

So you have an influx of youth that is struggling to do their job from a fundmantal and technical standpoint, which hurts the LBs, which hurts the safeties, which hurts the CBs. Both sides of the ball start up front, and that's where Michigan is the youngest. The defense could hide it a bit more, but it was still evident. I made a point against KSU that there was little GMatt could do schematically to get the defense to play better, the problem was they were just getting beat. That's the same argument I made for the offense most of the season. Now, that still comes back to coaching and getting the players to learn enough of something to do it well enough to execute, but it's execution issues either way, and issues that you would expect to get better as the entire rotation gains experience, and young guys like Taco and Henry and Wormley can start their careers as situational players that are tasked with doing a limited number of things instead of the whole gambit because there is no one else.

1. What is your prediction for next year? Given that it would seem you fall more into the "youth is the root of all evil" line of hinking it would seem you would be quite optimistic about our prospects for next year and beyond.

2. How shocked were you that Chud got the ax? I did not see that coming at all and I think he's being made the fall guy in a power play with Banner.

1. I think the team will be drastically more consistent on both sides of the ball. That tends to lead to improvement overall. I think from a fundamental and technical standpoint you will see a lot of improvement, but I honestly don't know how much of an improvement you'll see in the record (though I suspect it's at least an improvement in that area too). I think the range is 8-10 wins next year in the regular season, but I think they more handily beat the teams they should beat and appear more competitive in games they should be competitive in (and the perception of how they are competing improves, so you don't get the Nebraska type games).

2. I was very shocked and confused by that move. I thought Chud took a team that people thought would be terrible and made them competitive almost every week. And that's with losing what looked like a promising QB in Hoyer. Now, the record still was bad, and the end of the season flopped pretty hard for them, but I just don't see the point of not letting the guy at least try to establish something for more than a year. Whoever they bring in next won't do any better, IMO, than Chud would have next year, and it really screams of making a move for the sake of making a move, which is a bad motto. Getting too much like the NBA for my liking. Don't like how coaches are treated at all in the pro ranks especially.

I agree with #1, though I'm more concerned with the inside of the defensive line simply because, again, there is limited experienced depth. Pipkins will be returning from a bad tear and is already a junior, and the guys behind him are more freshmen or undersized tackles that you move over. That feels like a recipe for more gashing by good running teams, though I guess the experience in the front 7 outside of that could mitigate.

I do expect the offense to be better next year in terms of running the ball, but breaking in two new tackles seems like a tall order even if those guys have probably seen gametime at other positions this year. Do you expect the improvement to come along that line, or will the backs simply be stronger and better conditioned?

I bet the backs make small strides forward, a better understanding of cutbacks, how to attack the LOS, etc. That will certainly help, but if there is improvement, it really needs to start up front in my opinion.

this is surprising. I'm glad that some people think that after losing Lewan and Schofield that our OLine will be better, but I personally have a very hard time believing that. Yes, the guys on the interior should be (somewhat) better. But by how much? And how much better do they all need to be in order for there to be a real improvement? Let's not forget that this may be the worst OLine play we've ever seen at Michigan, at least in modern history. How can we trust a staff that just coached one of the worst Bowl losses I've seen? (and yes, the RichRod one was worse, no need to think about that anymore)

I am looking forward to the next year though. To me, the team seems poorly coached and the bowl game was a disaster - the team was not inspired to play, even the defense. If those aren't warning signs, I'm not sure what is. But we'll see, and who knows, things may turn around. I am always hopeful for the team - perhaps a naive optimist. Life is better that way I think. But I am sure having my doubts, and not sure how anyone can feel very confident going forward.

And losing the OTs will present other problems. But an OL that is consistent in doing a decent job is always better than an inconsistent OL where some do a great job and others miss. I don't you see either of our OTs consistently dominate the pass rush or kill DEs like we did Lewan, but if we have OTs that are fairly consistent and do their job, I would expect some improvement. I don't expect the same upside, because I don't think you have the ability to have a Lewan combined with a consistent interior anymore, but you are more likely to see a consistent line. Being able to run a little up the middle and being able to protect the interior more consistently will go a long ways to defenses needing to do more things to stop Michigan. Same with Michigan's defense (teams will need to do more things to beat them if the DL gets more consistent).

For example, look at MSU's OL and DTs. None of them really standout like a Lewan, or even a Schofield. But all of them are consistent in doing their job. As far as last year, they were a pretty bad group that had some injuries, rotated a lot of guys, and then got better despite losing, considered by many, their best OL (McDonald) and best OT (Burkland), on top of losing their best blocking TE. It goes back to it being the sum of the parts and the baseline of the whole, rather than individual pieces. And you can say that MSU develops players, but when has MSU's staff really ever developed OL since Dantonio got there? Leads to believe it's not just something magical at MSU as far as their OL getting better a year after a lot of guys had experience and then gelled.

There were also so many technique issues and missed responsibilities that the DL issues were magnified. Experienced guys (Clark, Beyer, C Gordon) lost contain repeatedly; CBs played soft and still gave up big plays; LBs filled the wrong gaps.

Overall, the youth was paired with low/average athleticism and technique issues by veterans. Mattison just couldn't develop or scheme his way past the shortcomings.

Yes, they happened at times, and I agree with some of Spielman's criticism of "not knowing where to bounce plays", but a lot of those LB issues were because: a) OL were getting up on them immediately, and b) the DL was getting too leveraged at the POA forcing the LBs to have to fill too much space.

CBs have been inconsistent, and the bowl game looked like a step in the wrong direction, but over the course of the year I find it hard to agree that they didn't improve overall. IMO, it all comes back to the fact that the LBs had to try to make up for the DL, so the safeties had to make up for some of the LB responsibilities. That left the CBs on more of an island, and that's what made the defense what it was.

The 2011 team was benefitted by a strong, experienced DL, so the slight drop last year is understandable.

However, the drop this year was dramatic. QWash disappeared, Morgan was marginal, Clark had only a few good games, Countess and Taylor were picked apart, and the whole unit was gashed by big plays.

In addition, Mattison was so vanilla and soft in his calls that we rarely generated pressure or offensive confusion. BWW was representative of the whole year. Overall, athleticism and scheming were average - just like like a 7-6 record would indicate. Poor year by Mattison.

I do think Washington was hurt; he seemed unable to stay on the field and was a non-factor most of the year. I thought Clark improved as the season progressed, and Countess and Taylor played decently all year but did have some bad games toward the end. That happens.

Those 7 points, while I agree are bad, are also due in part to inconsistent offense and a more pass oriented (read: more snaps in a game) offense. Seven is still too many more points to give up, but there are other issues that can be rolled into that additional number.

I thought it would be.... but then realized it's just a listing of yards per game with zero context. I thought we might be getting some regression analysis given the title. This is really basic. I'd sure like a competent OC and I'd love to see a comprehensive analysis of his failings here but this isn't it. No offense to the effort. I just clicked in with different expectations.

Remember when we used to complete passes down the field and gain large chunks of yards. Its all dink and dunk and instantly tackled now. Hardly even see a wide reciever hit in stride on a crossing pattern. Or deep ball completed

young OL, DL, etc. One should do a quantitative analysis of each season. Did the team improve during the year? By how much? How much was coaching and how much exogenous stuff (e.g., playing an elite defense such Alabama or MSU, or a soft defense such as Indiana)?

I believe that this coaching staff has not been able to improve each team significantly each year. That is a sign of a below average coaching staff. Whatever we think of KF at Iowa, he is a good, not an elite, coach because his teams improve and he does it with 2-3 star players. The same can be said of MSU's staff.

"I believe that this coaching staff has not been able to improve each team significantly each year. That is a sign of a below average coaching staff."

Although generally I agree with this statement, especially from the offenses stand point, how do you explain what Mattison did his first year with a GERG defense, bascially the same players, and turn them around to the D they were in Hoke's first season? I mean, that was some coaching...

This is going to be an unpopular thing that some people will try to "out" me with, but the 3-3-5 is a perfectly fine defense. Just as a staff, you need to understand the system inside and out like you do for any other system. You need to learn how to adjust it for heavy schemes. You need to know how to adjust it for spread schemes. You need to know how to change techniques and calls based on situations and teach those things properly.

The fact that the Michigan staff lacked proper teaching and understanding of the 3-3-5 is what made it fail at Michigan, not the scheme itself. Like any other scheme, there are strengths and weaknesses to it, but in and of itself it is no more flawed that other schemes. The difference between GERG (who proved himself at least respectable at Texas) and GMatt and Co is that GMatt and Co came in and taught a scheme (4-3 Under) and taught it well with technical and fundamental aspects to guys with experience (especially on the DL), and therefore the defense improved and improved quickly.

I've been saying for years that the 3-3 was not the problem. I have ran it with great success as a defensive coordinator, as well as a 4-3. The 3-3 is a totally different animal that most people don't really understand and you give some great examples of how you need to adjust. When I switched to the 3-3 from the 4-3 there was a learning curve on how to adjust and I don't think GERG ever really knew how to make those adjustments.

2010 defense. But did it get better throughout the year? I think the answer is no. They started as an OK defense and ended up as an OK defense. Let's not forget that a terrible Miller could have won the OSU game and of course we could have easily lost the bowl game to VT, playing average defense.

how they played across the year, I'm fine that they finished the season the way the started it. I think they were better than an "OK defense." As far as The Game goes, if history tells us nothing else about UM/OSU, records and how they play earlier in the year needs to be ignored. The last three seasons, UM playing well...OSU not, UM barely wins in AA. 2012, undefeated OSU, underperforming Michigan, 5 pt game in C-bus. This year, very underperforming Michigan, undefeated OSU again, in AA...UM almost wins in a heartbreaker.

The bowl game, I'll give that to you though. I will say that the bowl season, as it relates to the B1G regular season, its difficult to maintain intensity. I've always felt that the B1G is somewhat cheated with such a break before the bowls. That disparity was lessened to a degree once we went to a conference championship game, which UM has not yet played in after three years.

Quantitatively, how do you measure improvement during the season? 2012 will look like we improved during the season because we started out with Alabama and Notre Dame, before playing a soft B1G. 2013 will look we got worse because we played a soft non-conference and back-loaded the B1G schedule. Home\Road splits play into that as well.

The bigger difference at Iowa and MSU is that they have had coaches in place for years and have implemented their systems. In Ferentz's third year they went 7-5, and they only got to 11 wins in the 4th year. That kicked off a great 3-year run that, frankly, he hasn't come close to replicating since. So maybe he just captured lightening in a bottle at that time, because for the past 4 years he's had a combined record of 27-23. That isn't even very good considering their schedule.

MSU has been better more recently, but in his 3rd year his team was 6-7 and had accumulated a combined record of 22-17. Again, it was his fourth year, when he was able to clean out the last of JLS's recruits and get the guys he wanted into his sytem, that he started to net the 11-win years we've seen. Will he continue that trend next year after he loses half his defense, or will he become a bit more like Iowa and settle into a good run but not nearly as dominant? Also, MSU's recruiting was helped by the issues RR had at UM. That hasn't been the case recently, so who knows. But what Hoke walked into after RR wasn't any better a situation than either of these guys save for slightly better recruits; it was still a fractured fanbase coming off disappointing years.

So this myth that teams like MSU and Iowa have become dominant performers because of some magical elixir that turns mediocre players into stars needs to die. They've had patches of success, and one has been okay at keeping it going through consistency and the other is entering into a period where that may or may not be the case.

Also, it helps to have high-quality upperclassmen so if younger players do play, it is based on beating out a serviceable veteran rather than by default (or by beating similarly inexperienced players/not so good incumbents). There is a big difference between, say, Stribbling playing because he is practicing well enough to demand time versus throwing Shane out there almost by default, or Kyle Bosch because he looked the best of unappealing options.

As soon as he finds a trick play that works he keeps going at it until the defense is standing there before the offesne does. After the successful reverse and double reverse, we ran it again and again and it got stopped easily. It seems like we do not deviate from our plan even if the defense is lined up to stop it.

Just something I have noticed as a common theme among the games this year, maybe I am being too critical.

I get that people automatically assume a WR run is a trick play, but it's not. It's really just a method of attacking the edge with the run and helping your OL out. It also doesn't require a new blocking scheme like people keep saying, it's either a down G man blocking scheme or an outside zone blocking scheme, depending on the call. Both of those are blocking schemes Michigan runs (which you can argue if that's good or not), but running a sweep to the WR is in zero ways new for anyone other than a WR having to learn to catch the ball on the little push pass from the QB.

Michigan ran about 2 trick plays against KSU, the reverse off of the jet sweep and the 2 pt conversion. The end around off of inside zone, the jet sweep, the screens, those aren't trick plays. Those are standard plays in an offense. Lots of teams, including OSU, MSU, and Minnesota, get to the edge the majority of the time (or at least close) utilizing WRs in the run game.

I agree it isn't a trick play, but I think people are troubled by the fact that those types of plays seemingly are the only way the team can get a rushing attack going at times. Those other teams you mentioned were also able to move the ball in more classic means. Hell, UM used to be able to do so as well and that was why you could see these sweeps and end-arounds pop up from time to time.

Because when you have to rely on those things, you're offense is going to tend to stall, as it showed. Michigan needs to be better next year at establishing an inside run threat, because sweep plays, while a fundamental part of offenses, should not be leaned on as essentially a bread-and-butter play.

I agree with what you're saying, I just get tired of reading about people claiming this and that (different blocking scheme, trick plays, etc, etc) and constantly moving the goalposts to fit an agenda without actually understanding what's happening.

If people just said that Michigan needs to develop an interior run threat, then yeah, that's fine and reasonable to say.

I see it as the opposite, actually. Borges seems to run a play that is successful, then quickly come back and run the counter to the play, as if the defense isn't going to be expecting us to run anything but the same play.

I'm thinking of the reverse to Funchess. We ran that play and it picked up 14 yards. On the next drive, we run the same play again, only they don't toss it to Funchess, and KSU ate it up. The play actually looked like Funchess was set up for another big gain, but Borges tried to outsmart everyone without properly setting up the counter.

Lots of people were critical of Borges for not setting up the next step in the "iteration". Lot's of people were critical of Borges for waiting for the defense to adjust before he adjusted or attacked with the next thing. So, you two are seeing the opposite as reasons why the playcalling has failed and this offense hasn't worked.

The point I'm making is that it's a fine line (this goes with defensive playcalling as well) that these guys are walking and it's far from as black and white as people are making it. At the end of the day, the common complaint about the playcalling on both sides boils down to "it didn't work" or "it worked" and that's the extent of the knowledge or effort given to it. When the next iteration didn't work it was "obvious", when it did work it was "why didn't we run it earlier". When one thing worked it was "why not stick with it", when it didn't work it was "why is he so stubborn".

I think more people need to acknowledge that it isn't that simple. And it goes the same for Mattison calling defensive plays and the complaints specifically about a lack of blitzing.

the input from all parties. It all makes sense and I was venting my main frustration from him these past 2 years. The underlying issues it seem make it a hard choice on the future of the borges and funk tenure becasuse of all the underlying issuses, does it really mask the fact that we might have an explisve offense next year. I am really hoping so and the added experience and having the same o line from spring til fall will pay off.

But did we really have to run the shane morris option on 3rd down in the red zone?

Either way there was something messed up with it. I understand the thought behind doing it (defense thinking that Morris won't run option, interior pressure, etc), but KSU pretty much backed out and rushed 4, making that play pretty much impossible.

My feeling was that it was a call anticipating a KSU was going to run, but that's a fairly easy play to check to (more than most plays, including the extended handoff, it is pretty much a counting thing to check to it) so Morris may have had the ability, but I didn't see him check either. If Borges wanted something safe there, I would have preferred a flare screen or something to get a RB on the edge and hopefully back the DBs off a bit first, but yeah.

At the beginning of the year the O line couldn't pass or run block. I actually think the pass protection has improved. The run blocking is a whole other story. We suck at running the football. Just suck. I think once that get's figured out then everything offensively will fall into place.

Defense on the other hand...........

I've been extrememly underwhelmed by our defensive performances the last few games. I believe our D line is very average and I'm bored of the 10-12 yard receiver cushion, borderline prevent, defense that is called/schemed. However, I like our secondary and LB corp moving forward.

Once the offensive and defensive lines start becoming strengths of the team, I think we'll start seeing more consistent, solid performances that should translate into more wins.

Statistics are not predictive. You're not taking into account the concomitant replacement of key experienced players with completely inexperienced players such as on the offensive line, receiver, linebacker, and defensive tackle position which are all extremely key positions. You're also not taking into account the shift in play calling as a result of mitigating factors such as Bellomy being hurt, Kalis and Bryant being hurt, the offensive line shuffle as a result, Gardner being hurt, and more finesse pro style plays requiring execution. Finally, if every dropped pass this season was actually caught, I'm pretty sure we would have won 3 more games and our away yardage total would go up by 100 yards per game simply because when we switched to a pass-first offense after Nebraska, any dropped pass was absolutely crippling.

The offense was not terrible BECAUSE it has low yards per game. That's the opposite - it was bad because the play calling is reliant on players blocking which didn't happen for whatever reason and thus we got low offensive yardage.

Remember when Molk got hurt midseason and the running game took a huge hit? Then when he came back, the running game instanly got better? One man had a huge impact on how the running game worked. This year they were trying to replace three guys on the inside (with freshman) and by god if it didn't work out too well. This is not the best example, I'm sure, because Molk was Molk, but it does show somewhat that the interior is crucial for run blocking.

Also, I don't think it's so much excusing Borges as much as getting tired of the Fire Borges meme. The defense didn't fair too well this year either, but Mattison is a boss and Borges is a boob....

So what you want me to believe is that after an entire year of football, it is completely okay that redshirt freshman, you know, second year players, could not show any progress at all in the run game by the end of the year. This with two NFL senior tackles on that same O-line.

It was only a different combo all year becuase Borges could not coach the intial group well enough to succeed, nor the second, third....and the list goes on. Are you related to Borges? That would explain your undying love for his failure.

This is going to shock you, but offensive coordinators almost never coach the offensive line. This is particularly true when the OC is also a non-OL position coach. Borges coaches the QB and coordinates the offense. Funk takes his orders from Borges but does all of the OL coaching.

I've seen coaches get into a fist fight when the position coach thought the OC was going over his head. This is how the sausage is made.

We can talk all we want about statistics and coaching changes. The fact of the matter is, the real problem is the individual who is leading the athletic department, David Brandon. I believe this guy is the sole reason why mediocrity is the benchmark at Michigan. It's clear to see the regression has been taking shape at Michigan since the 2011 season, however, we all know that the staff will be back. I am NOT in favor of firing Brady Hoke, but until some real changes are made what some of the other coaches, and we start seeing these talented recruits begin to develop like they should, we will continue to see a regression and that includes statistics. I know that this may be an old bit, but honestly folks, as long as dave brandon is running the show this is what we are going to get. I love Michigan, and will always be a fan, but as an alum, I am terribly disappointed with the state of our program. Go blue.

I believe this guy is the sole reason why mediocrity is the benchmark at Michigan.

What exactly do you base this on?

Brandon is a former player on some Big Ten championship teams. I can't imagine he's thrilled to go 7-6. He certainly wasn't three years ago.

I don't know why fans seem to think Brandon doesn't care about winning or losing. Not only is he a former player, he walked away from a corporate CEO gig (probably taking a large pay cut) to take this job, and it doesn't really amount to a stepping stone for his political ambitions, if he still has them. For a guy in his position, there was no reason to take this job if he didn't really want to see Michigan succeed. Even if he somehow didn't care, he has 100,000 season-ticketholders to pacify, and they expect to see a winning team for their money.

I don't blame Al as much as everyone in the world does. He doesn't have WR's that can stretch the field, the Oline is what it is, and his QB lost almost all his confidence after the ND game.

The coaching thru out the season has been awful, take the bowl game for example: The first offensive drive was a brilliant way to get Shane comfortable (outside the Smith run), we won the toss, and kicked off to start the game. Yes lets give up an opening drive TD, so are freshman QB can start off his first game in the hole. Hoke was suppose to take the opening kick, install that exact opening drive, get some points on the board, and go from there. The whole outcome of the game would have changed if they took the ball to start.

I must have missed your /s tag there somewhere. We can debate the wisdom of deferring to the second half (with a Frosh QB starting his first game, it seemed the best choice to me), but do you really think the outcome of the game would have been different if Michigan started on offense instead of defense?

What is the point to differ to the second half if you have a true freshman qb you don't trust to throw a pass longer then 10 yards?. The first drive was perfect for Shane, you take that game plan get your fr. Qb a lead, and some confidence. Don't take the ball in the second half down 21-6 when your not going to throw the damn ball down field. We lost the game from the opening drive, why do you put a fr qb in a trailing situation, when you had a great opening drive game plan?

wasn't created because UM deferred to the second half. It was created because the D couldn't stop Lockett. If UM gets the ball into the end zone, even thought they had it second to start the game, then we're looking at 21-14 no matter who has the ball first. Stop KSU just once, and its a tie game.

You're pinning too much on that one decision when there was many more factors that went into the 21-6 deficit.

You don't know you're going to be down 21-6. Typically, it's adventageous to defer to the 2nd half from a momentum standpoint. If you're losing you get the ball back to close the gap. If you're winning you get the ball with potentially pushing the game open. So all else being equal, deferring tends to be optimal.

Now, from Michigan's standpoint:

1. Michigan's defense tended to perform better overall than Michigan's offense throughout the season. I'm sure Hoke and Co didn't look at the defensive match-up and conclude they were screwed, they probably thought they had a pretty good game plan and a stop would give Morris good field position to start off.

2. Morris was probably really hyped up, deferring gives him an opportunity to settle down a bit. The game has started, you're watching it, your heart rate can at least drop a little bit.

3. In the 2nd half, your brand new QB is hopefully in a bit more of a groove, so now you can make adjustments and get the ball rolling more with a QB that is much more comfortable.

4. What if the offense gets the ball first, Morris is too hyped up, and goes three and out? You've given up bad field position to start, yada, yada, yada, a snowball problem potentially exists in that scenario as well. Perhaps a worse one.

I really have absolutely zero issue with Hoke deferring to the 2nd half, and it's in line with what he's always done (and most coaches do).

Seriously? That game wouldn't have gone any different than it did if we had gotten the opening drive. K-State made damn sure to stop our offense from taking the field and our defense had given up on the team. Game over.

Maybe next year Hoke can put you on the sideline so you can inform him how the opening drive is going to turn out before the coin toss. That way, Hoke won't ruin the whole game by making the wrong call if he wins the toss.

Come on, I'm sure if Hoke knew his defense was going to disappear in the first half he might have taken the ball. But every coach defers when they win the toss. It is much better to have the first posession of the second half, especially when you are breaking in a freshman quarterback in a big game.

I think deferring was the correct call. However, punting down 21-6 with a 4th and 3 near mid field with a minute and change left in the first half was just deflating. Worst case is that they have a short field and our guys knowing that the coaching staff believe in them. Punting in that situation made nearly everyone in maize and blue go from, "this is bad, but we can overcome" to "we're screwed".

I do think we tend to blame the coaches a bit too much on this blog since ultimately execution matters a ton. But unlike the NFL, in college the players are young and the coaches have to put them in a position to succeed. We also need to stop giving the defensive coaches a pass. BUT......the fact is that we have very few playmakers on this team. On defense the only person close to being a playmaker is Jake Ryan, just a few months removing from a major injury. On offense we have Gallon, Funchess, and Gardner but too much dysfunction on the OL and scheme to utilize them effectively. We don't have a difference maker in the backfield and our scheme seems to make everything seem so hard. Nothing about this team makes sense any more - offense looks great against ND/OSU/IN and awful for long stretches. Defense looks solid for much of the year but collapses late several times and can't do anything against OSU/KSU/IN. I think you have to hold someone accountable on the coaching staff and can't just tell Brandon it was all "poor execution by the players", but it is probably lower-level assistants. I also think that Hoke only gets his fifth year if we see progress next season. We lose just two semi-productive players on D and have an easier schedule.

This years defense was more talented (as in they had more physical abilities, more playmakers, etc; and that trend should continue), but they weren't as good as far as consistency and technique.

In general, that's him admitting that youth is likely a problem and that they probably should have focused more on the fundamentals throughout the season (which is something they also admitted around the first bye week) rather than trying to scheme so heavily to opponents.

It's difficult to build a trend based on yearly averages like this because the numbers seem too high level, at least to me. Also, rosters change slightly every year, so it is difficult to say if this is indeed a trend forming or if this is a transition that is simply making people gnash their teeth a little more than normal. I think it is much more the latter myself, at least right now.

Someone alluded to this above, but consider also that it has only been three years, only one of them completely sans Denard Robinson. It was established in a review last year that Robinson accounted for almost half Michigan's total offensive yardage in his career here, and roughly 40% of it during the 2011 and 2012 campaigns individuals. We're still at a point where it is difficult to separate the numbers of Borges' offensive coaching from those of Robinson. This season is the first one when we can look at a Dilithium-free offense, so the numbers in that respect say only so much.

A few things I do find intriguing based on 36 regular season games so far (excluding bowls in favor of more typical opponents here):

- as expected, the passing game has become more productive under Gardner. 198 yards per game overall in 2012, a slight improvement from 187 yards per game in 2011. In the five games that Gardner started in 2012, we averaged 251 yards, and we averaged 248 yards per game in the air this year, so effectively the same. Average yards per attempt, which is actually a fairly good indicator of overall success, has only inched upward from 8.72 YPA in 2011 with Robinson to 8.85 YPA in this first full year of Devin Gardner. More yards on average, but similar verticality.

- with regards to rushing success, we averaged 44 carries per game at an average of 5.30 YPC in 2011, decreasing to 38 carries at 4.77 YPC in 2012, (things changed after Nebraska). Interestingly, we averaged 38 carries per game this year, but at a 3.16 YPC clip. I think that speaks to the issue of creating space for the RBs to do their work as well as play selection to some extent.

- take the rushing data above in the context of total plays now - 66 offensive plays per game in 2011, down to 62 plays per game in 2012 and now up to 68 plays in 2013. Part of the 2013 average is credited to OT games, of course, but we're getting slightly faster as an offense and, as a function of play selection, running less overall. Perhaps that is due to lack of success or it might be the shift to a more balanced game finally happening as well (the rushing game and its issues being underscored as a result).

This is by no means a defense of anyone, of course, but I think there are other things we should look at as well. I think Borges gets more time as well, and there is much to work on, but I think three years doesn't necessarily mean a trend is forming at this point.

After perusing the depth chart, I can't help but think the staff will continue to get the benefit of the doubt through 2015 at least. The Team will still be pretty young next year though the quality of our depth is improving slowly but surely.

Stats can always be deceiving. Sometimes it makes sense to look at things without focusing solely on the stats... Disclaimer: I am neither pro nor anti Gorgeous Al

2013 OSU he had a great game plan, and came out guns blazing. He hung up 41 points on OSU. Did OSU shit the bed a little bit? Yes, but Borges' gameplan worked well. There were moments he showed why he's one of the highest paid OCs in the country.

I know this site has been redundant with the fire Borges mentality, peppering in some Borges Apologists here and there, but I feel quite a few of the posters here don't really form educated opinions on their own, they just regurgitate others' opinions. I love reading the same thing posted 100 times on a board post. Some examples:
Fire Borges!
Fire Funk!
Hoke should be gone!
Mediochrity is the new norm for Michigan!
Mattison sucks too, can't excuse his shitty defenses!
Youth isn't an excuse!
I haven't chimed in with my addition to the circle jerk.. until now! With the roster we have, especially at OL, I don't know many offensive coordinators that would've done better than Borges this year. I don't think it's any mystery, the OL is where a lot of problems stemmed from this year. It's hard to run any plays when your OL is as porous as a colander. They made the decision to shuffle through the OL, trying to get better performances out of RS Freshmen, or RS Sophomores starting for their first time, but this line never even looked average. Part of the problem lies in the numbers.

Youth might be a bit of an excuse in this case. The trenches are where the game is won, and we have between 63-72% of our offensive line seeing the field for their first time this year.

Youth is not an excuse! Player development is key!

I can agree with that, but you can't expect players to make insane leaps and bounds only seeing the field for 3 months. Next year they will have had an entire off-season to correct their mistakes on the field from this year. If Funk and Borges don't show they have corrected the errors from this year, then something should be done. But with the hands they were dealt this year, I can't rationally say this staff needs extreme readjustments.

really ??? C'mon everyone knows that. Fact is that this team that started with a blowout win and high quality game against ND, then sputtered beyond what anyone could expect. We lost 5 of the last 6 games we played , and that win was a miracle win at Northwestern.

We started 5-0 and had PSU down for the count with 6 minutes to play, when Borges froze the game rather than playing to crush them. Then back to back negative rushing yards per game against MSU and Nebraska (along with the absolute failure after the muffed punt). Then came Iowa ... And BTW Al, you could have run the BWW 2pt conversion against ohio, even if Devin had turf toe.

Whatever the reason anyone wants to use to describe the VERY disappointing year ... the fact is that SOMETHING at the coaching level needs to change. Status quo is simply a receipe for the same type of season in 2014.

Your reply doesn't really address what my post was about. We had 4 scholarship offensive linemen that were RS Sophomores or older. That number is insanely low. You need the players to play the game, and if you don't have the players, there isn't much you can do. It's rare underclassmen kill it in the trenches.

I think it's universally accepted this season was a disappointment. A lot of people were predicting an 8-10 win season with a big ten championship game. This team had a great game against ND, just like they had a great game against OSU. One was the second game of the season, one was the second to last. The offensive line woes were exposed after the ND game, and everyone knew how to beat us after that.

What I don't agree with is something NEEDS to be done at the coaching level. If Hoke fires Borges, I'll be happy. If Hoke fires Funk, I'll be happy. If he fires both, I'll be happy. If Hoke fires neither of them and we have a 7-5 season next year, I'll be a bit unhappy.

We had a 10 point lead and driving the football, and Al took his foot off the gas. He called run after run into a 9 man front just to run the clock. We moved the football entirely on the pass or Devin's scrambles the 2nd half and had taken total control of the game and Borges FAILED to do his job when it was time to finish them.

When was the last time an audible on offense was called? I'm being serious. It kills me every time when we show blitz and our opponent stops, checks into new blocks/formations etc and then executes a play that isn't a TFL. I can't remember the last time I've seen this from Michigan.

When was the last time an audible on offense was called? I'm being serious. It kills me every time when we show blitz and our opponent stops, checks into new blocks/formations etc and then executes a play that isn't a TFL. I can't remember the last time I've seen this from Michigan.

I think the running game will improve. Fitz was a horrible back. He couldn't pass block or run between the tackles. For some reason Hoke and company think seniors should always start just because they are seniors. Hopefully Green and Smith work their tails off this off season and are vastly improved.